Text Size

With regard to electoral irregularities, the specific criticisms made by Mousavi — such as running out of ballot paper in some precincts and not keeping polls open long enough (even though polls stayed open for at least three hours after the announced closing time) — could not, in themselves, have tipped the outcome so clearly in Ahmadinejad’s favor.

Moreover, these irregularities do not, in themselves, amount to electoral fraud even by American legal standards. And, compared with the U.S. presidential election in Florida in 2000, the flaws in Iran’s electoral process seem less significant.

In the wake of Friday’s election, some “Iran experts” — perhaps feeling burned by their misreading of contemporary political dynamics in the Islamic Republic — argue that we are witnessing a “conservative coup d’état,” aimed at a complete takeover of the Iranian state.

But one could more plausibly suggest that if a “coup” is being attempted, it has been mounted by the losers in Friday’s election. It was Mousavi, after all, who declared victory on Friday even before Iran’s polls closed. And three days before the election, Mousavi supporter Rafsanjani published a letter criticizing the leader’s failure to rein in Ahmadinejad’s resort to “such ugly and sin-infected phenomena as insults, lies and false allegations.” Many Iranians took this letter as an indication that the Mousavi camp was concerned their candidate had fallen behind in the campaign’s closing days.

In light of these developments, many politicians and “Iran experts” argue that the Obama administration cannot now engage the “illegitimate” Ahmadinejad regime. Certainly, the administration should not appear to be trying to “play” in the current controversy in Iran about the election. In this regard, President Barack Obama’s comments on Friday, a few hours before the polls closed in Iran, that “just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities” was extremely maladroit.

From Tehran’s perspective, this observation undercut the credibility of Obama’s acknowledgement, in his Cairo speech earlier this month, of U.S. complicity in overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government and restoring the shah in 1953.

The Obama administration should vigorously rebut any argument against engaging Tehran following Friday’s vote. More broadly, Ahmadinejad’s victory may force Obama and his senior advisers to come to terms with the deficiencies and internal contradictions in their approach to Iran. Before the Iranian election, the Obama administration had fallen for the same illusion as many of its predecessors — the illusion that Iranian politics is primarily about personalities and finding the right personality to deal with. That is not how Iranian politics works.

The Islamic Republic is a system with multiple power centers; within that system, there is a strong and enduring consensus about core issues of national security and foreign policy, including Iran’s nuclear program and relations with the United States. Any of the four candidates in Friday’s election would have continued the nuclear program as Iran’s president; none would agree to its suspension.

Any of the four candidates would be interested in a diplomatic opening with the United States, but that opening would need to be comprehensive, respectful of Iran’s legitimate national security interests and regional importance, accepting of Iran’s right to develop and benefit from the full range of civil nuclear technology — including pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle — and aimed at genuine rapprochement.

Such an approach would also, in our judgment, be manifestly in the interests of the United States and its allies throughout the Middle East. It is time for the Obama administration to get serious about pursuing this approach — with an Iranian administration headed by the reelected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Flynt Leverett directs The New America Foundation’s Iran Project and teaches international affairs at Pennsylvania State university. Hillary Mann Leverett is CEO of STRATEGA, a political risk consultancy. Both worked for many years on Middle East issues for the U.S. government, including as members of the National Security Council staff.

Ahmadinejad won in the same way that Viktor Yanukovych won in the Ukraine in 2004. I'm sure that Ahmadinejad won some votes but it just seems suspicious that the Supreme Leader certified the results so quickly. I wouldn't doubt there would be fraud in this election. If Pres. A. lost then there would be a real push towards reform, I believe, especially with Obama's outreach. The group with the mos to lose would be the ruling mullahs because in any free society there is no room for washed out theocrats. My only question at this point is where is Obama on all of this? Why isn't he speaking out against this travesty? Where is he when dealing with the tyrants in Burma? Or does he save all of his invective and his polished rage for domestic opponents?

This is pure nonsense. The "results" were announced before the votes could possibly have been counted, even in violation of Iran's own electoral laws--such as they are. The opposition was winning with around 75% of the vote when all of a sudden these false "election returns" were announced. I don't blame the opposition for taking to the streets, and I hope and pray that they overthrow that clerical-fascist regime once and for all. There's no place for it in the modern world.

No one should "get over" something like this, if they have even an ounce of courage and morality left. If they do, they will roll over for anything.

80% of 39.something is 31.2 million: that's the number of votes that were said to have been counted in less than one day. Possible? Yes. Likely? Not very.

Beyond that, this article overlooks -- or perhaps the writers didn't know about -- the latest developments. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has ordered a full review of the votes cast. This was apparently done because 27 "moderate" clerics wrote him a letter urging him to review the "widespread fraud" they alleged was perpetrated during the election. Considering that Khamenei himself had declared the election results a "divine assessment", his decision to order a review indicates that the allegations of fraud are taken seriously.

Combine all of that with Mousavir's web-sites going down, SMS text messenging disappearing, & a state-run media wholly in Ahmadinejad's corner, & it's impossible to objectively say that Ahmadinejad won this election "real & fair", as he claims. In all fairness, I consider this election result no more accurate than were the recent Zimbabwean elections. Is Politico going to print articles claiming "Mugabe Won, Get Over It"? Somehow, I highly doubt that, so I'm not sure why they'd find this article any more acceptable.

It doesnt matter who won. Both candidates are hand picked by the mullahs and no difference in policy exists. The benefit to Iran is to overturn the election and pretend democracy exists. In fact, nothing would change except naive inexperienced and dangerous leaders who might buy into the ruse.

The first numbers announced were based on less than 20% of votes cast, so the comments about how could all of the votes have been counted so fast don't make sense. No one said they were. It's possible that IF Mousavi was doing worse than expected in his base areas, and IF Ahmadinejad was doing better than expected in his base areas, the projection could have been made that early. Most of us are guessing, and probably over-simplifying the Iranian electoral map. If Ahmadinejad really had that kind of margin, it's in the government's interest to have the investigation be seen as fair and transparent, so let's hope that's the case.

Iranian elections are a crock of poop. The Mullahs control and run Iran and it does not matter who the puppet is. Iran will continue to support terror and chaos in the Middle East and there is not a darn thing Obama the magnificent can or will do about it.